The first time I saw this video, I was not surprised at all.

What I wanted to know was where the directive came from that had all of these voices repeating the same type of phrases over and over, as if by the sheer force of their vocal cords and the machine gun like repetition of "Obama" and "rape", these radio and TV shock jocks could conjure the image of the black male rapist deep within their listeners psyches, throwing yet another log on the fire of racial animus the conservative minority still relies on, even in 2009, to do the dirty work of coloring the minds of their less sophisticated supporters against Barack Obama.

What I found out got me to thinking so deeply about what the purpose of Brown Man Thinking Hard should really be that I had a hard time getting my arms around what it was I wanted to say about the video above. So I pushed "PLAY" over and over while I wrote this.

I am a big believer in the power of language. And even though I struggle to use the most positive words I can, in some instances, I think this power, when used in a negative manner, far exceeds that of the largest caliber gun to terrorize people, to threaten their sense of security, to connect them to their deepest seated fears.

The GOP believes the same thing.

This video actually coincides with another thought I had in the last couple of days. Given the many millions more people who self-identify themselves as Democrats versus those who identify themselves as Republicans, why hasn't the Democratic Party simply extinguished the GOP by now?

George Lakoff, a fellow at the Rockridge Institute and the author of Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, had the best answers I could find to my question in the excerpts below from an interview he did for UC Berkeley News back in 2003.

LAKOFF: "...conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing...And that's the problem. Liberals don't get it. They don't understand what it is they have to be doing."

QUESTIONER: How does language influence the terms of political debate?

LAKOFF: Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame.

If you then add the word "voter" in front of "revolt," you get a metaphorical meaning saying that the voters are the oppressed people, the governor is the oppressive ruler, that they have ousted him and this is a good thing and all things are good now. All of that comes up when you see a headline like "voter revolt" - something that most people read and never notice. But these things can be affected by reporters and very often, by the campaign people themselves."

QUESTIONER: Why haven't progressives done the same thing [learn how to frame their language]?

LAKOFF: "...conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing...And that's the problem. Liberals don't get it. They don't understand what it is they have to be doing."

"Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say, 'Here's several million dollars, do what you need to do.' And basically, they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV. They do all of that. Why? Because the conservative moral system, which I analyzed in "Moral Politics," has as its highest value preserving and defending the "strict father" system itself. And that means building infrastructure. As businessmen, they know how to do this very well.

Meanwhile, liberals' conceptual system of the "nurturant parent" has as its highest value helping individuals who need help. The progressive foundations and donors give their money to a variety of grassroots organizations. They say, 'We're giving you $25,000, but don't waste a penny of it. Make sure it all goes to the cause, don't use it for administration, communication, infrastructure, or career development.' So there's actually a structural reason built into the worldviews that explains why conservatives have done better."


This interview was done a few years ago, as this next segment shows:


QUESTIONER: Do any of the Democratic Presidential candidates grasp the importance of framing?

LAKOFF: "None. They don't get it at all. But they're in a funny position. The framing changes that have to be made are long-term changes. The conservatives understood this in 1973. By 1980 they had a candidate, Ronald Reagan, who could take all this stuff and run with it. The progressives don't have a candidate now who understands these things and can talk about them. And in order for a candidate to be able to talk about them, the ideas have to be out there. You have to be able to reference them in a sound bite. Other people have to put these ideas into the public domain, not politicians."


If you take a step back and look at the political landscape of the past eighteen months, it becomes evident why Barack Obama is GOP Enemy Number One. Frank Luntz, the famed and feared GOP strategist who is a key influence on many of the party's political buzzwords and phrases, took his hat off to the Obama team last year, acknowledging that they had outwitted the McCain camp from Day One.

The organization Obama built, in terms of discipline, communication and ability to stay on task, was unprecedented for a Democratic nominee. Non-union citizens literally "bought in" to the political process with small donations that made them feel like they were a part of something big. Obama campaign members learned how to tap into the power of the personal narrative, successfully influencing and motivating reluctant citizens to not only register to vote, but also show up at the polls. Most of this was done by volunteers FOR FREE.

That's the kind of thing that really scares the people like the Koch family from Wisconsin or the Scaife interests in Pennsylvania, and others like them who are willing to lavish billions on a conservative media system designed to keep them in control of the political process.

I am already seeing Limbaugh and Malkin and Hannity and O'Reilly and Savage for what they are - mouthpieces, similar in function to the White House press secretary, who sit on top of the billions of dollars of really rich men, billions they get to see but not touch.

In a few weeks, after a healthcare bill gets to the president's desk, you will start seeing the words and phrases from the Republican "black box", words and phrases so inflammatory that they could be labeled "radioactive. The cacophony of vitriol will be at a fever pitch.

Don't be dismayed.

It will be the sign of progress - the sound of the GOP noise machine in decline.